How did Jersey Joe earn all his title shots.

He got his first title shot because he was the #1 contender.

He got his second because the result of the first was controversial.

Then Louis retired, leaving him and Ezzard Charles as the respective #1 and #2, so it was logical that they fought an eliminator.

Charles won their first encounter, and Walcott probably was a bit lucky to get a rematch, but there weren’t that many good contenders around.

The result of the rematch was controversial, so Walcott ended getting a third fight with Charles, which would be third time lucky.

I would say that most of them were logical fights, with the second Charles fight being the least justified.

 

Walcott's connections may have helped a bit too...

 

I don’t think that they were anything exceptional.

 

Janitor broke it down well. Both men were highly regarded and Walcott could have gotten 1st Louis fight 2nd he was leading. Good thing Walcott got fight 3, credit to Ezz but wrong move for him

 

In hindsight Charles should have sat on the result of his first fight with Walcott.

Once he went beyond that, Walcott started to figure him out, and it became harder to deny him rematches.

 

You don't think being managed by Felix Bocchicchio, associate of Frankie Carbo, did him any favours? Let's face it his second shot at Charles was hardly based on merit given he lost the first one handily and had also lost his previous fight against 5-1 underdog Rex Layne. And then he immediately gets a third shot at Charles?

 

This might be a topic for another thread. But I've heard arguments which advocate that the fourth meeting between Charles and Walcott should have gone in Ezzard's favor. Of course some argue the contrary and say that the decision was fair. Anyone have any insight to this ?

 

According to this report, a "big majority" at ringside gave it to Charles.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=pmoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4789,1494010&hl=en

 

Was the second Charles-Walcott fight really controversial? I know a lot of people had it closer than the official scorecards, but the ones I've seen still had Charles winning.

 

As I understand it was the third fight that the press were particularly sore over. Fortunately Walcott made good of that fifth chance at the title.

 

The crowd booed the decision, and Walcott protested loudly about it.

There was a significant feeling that the result was unfair, even if it might have been misguided.

 

Maybe par for the course for that era but, still, being 'connected' had its advantages, like garnering title shots that probably weren't deserved.

Was the second fight really that controversial? It's true the crowd booed but of eight reporters polled at ringside, all eight had Charles ahead. The AP had Charles ahead. And so did the three judges. Walcott may have complained but then he often did when he lost.